Does the end always justify the means?

Utilitarianism is a theory that states an action which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is morally right. Jeremy Bentham, who devised this theory, said that this principle will help you come to the decision of whether an action is good or bad. Bentham saw pleasure as the ultimate goal for ethics. His aim was to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. John Mills developed this theory focusing on maximising the general happiness. Taking Bentham’s and Mill’s statements of utilitarianism into consideration, it asserts that any action can be justified as long as it brings about more pleasure than pain. This tells us that sometimes the end does justify the means. The ‘end’ being the outcome of our actions and the ‘means’ being the actions taken in order to reach this result. This phrase refers to the morality of an action. It means that the morality of an action is based only on the outcome, not on the action itself. 

If we followed this idiom, we would be acting on the idea that if you need a specific outcome, the way we get there is not important. Can the benefits of something, as the final result, outweigh the harm caused during the process? This is what causes disputes on whether or not we can justify the means by the end. Utilitarianism suggests that an action is morally right if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This suggests that the means (actions) are not important if the outcome produces the greatest good for the greatest number. We could say that this supports the idea that the ends do justify the means. However, in the process of reaching an aimed goal, there might be many damages produced, causing pain. Pain goes against the theory of utilitarianism as the idea is to minimise pain whilst maximising pleasure. Even if the outcome produces maximum happiness for many people, what happens to the people hurt in the process? There will always be a minority that are not satisfied as their needs are not met; which is a major flaw in the system of utilitarianism. 

There are many examples of this e.g. abortion. If a woman has fallen pregnant unintentionally for various reasons such as rape, it is not expected of her to keep the baby. It could be a very mentally challenging act if she was to give birth to, and raise the child. In this case, the blameless conclusion would be to abort this baby. However, the actions that cause the loss of the baby are seen as morally wrong. Therefore, just because the conclusion of a decision may be good, the actions that enabled this conclusion may not be so good.


AC

Is utilitarianism relevant in the 21st century?

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, meaning that it looks at the consequences of an action to decide whether that action is right or wrong. It generally relies on the principle of utility, which is a measure of how useful an action is. Utilitarianism is a relativist system as it does not provide fixed moral rules however, is flexible in a given situation.

Jeremy Bentham was the founder of utilitarianism in 1789 and he stated that the principle of utility will help a person to decide whether an action is good or bad. He believed in quantitative utilitarianism which is “the greatest good for the greatest number”. In other words, an action is right if it brings about the greatest good for the majority of people.  Bentham was a psychological hedonist; he was concerned with the role of pleasure and pain in decision making. He used the hedonic calculus to measure pleasure in terms of intensity, duration, certainty and extent. Bentham also said that every situation is judged individually and every action is judged on its own merits (act utilitarianism).

John Stuart Mill developed Bentham’s theory and thought that searching for basic pleasure was an animal instinct, and that humans are capable of more than this. He believed in higher and lower pleasures; the higher pleasures, pleasures of the mind, being things such as education and the lower pleasures, pleasures of the body, being things such as food (qualitative utilitarianism). Mill had respect for rules that are formed to benefit society (rule utilitarianism).

The principle of hedonism (happiness) is very important and both Bentham and Mill argue that intrinsic good (the only thing that is good in itself) is happiness or pleasure. This supports the fact that utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century because it is echoed in the current educational climate, where “happiness” has been taught subject in many schools. Schools are encouraging their students to fulfil their higher pleasures (pleasures of the mind) in hobbies they offer to them such as different kinds of sport and art. Bentham is careful to balance out pleasure with pain when referring to the quantity of happiness that we achieve through our actions. His utilitarianism promotes selfless acts which discourage selfish acts such as lying or stealing, therefore it is showing that by choosing to act more morally with selfless acts we will be creating a better and happier environment for everyone. What brings humans happiness should be decided by looking at the consequences of our actions because it keeps everyone in touch with the day to day matters which is why utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century.

The principle of hedonism is a timeless principle as it reminds us that we should strive to achieve happiness whilst avoiding pain. We should work towards the greater good and overlook our individual differences. Bentham said, “The greatest good for the greatest number”. This could be put into action in governments of the 21^st century as it will always help to satisfy the needs of the majority which is the best thing a government can hope for in its country.  Although this may seem unfair as the minority is being “forgotten” it is, however, fairer long-term. If governments strive to make everyone happy all the time, it will become more likely that no one will end up happy. Utilitarianism brings about more happiness which is relevant in today’s society. Therefore, Utilitarianism is the only practical ethical system for governing large groups of people and it provides us with the most simple, yet powerful, ethical guideline which is to strive for happiness but only at the same time as minimising pain.

However, utilitarianism can also be seen as not being relevant to the 21^st century because by promoting happiness over other goods, it reduces morality to being simple. Morality is complex, challenging and torn between conflicting duties and interests that often bring about equal amounts of pleasure and pain. This means that there must be some other way of differentiating between what is considered right and wrong.

Some people may argue that happiness isn’t powerful enough to make people act in the 21^st century. People continue to carry out actions that cause more overall pain than happiness such as forcing sex on a person or the abuse and neglect of children. There needs to be punishments in place to discourage these kinds of actions. Therefore, many would say that Utilitarianism supports evil by placing the emphasis on the outcomes of an action rather than the action itself. Also, there must be more to life than achieving happiness and avoiding pain which therefore must mean that hedonism seems to go against our common sense.

Overall, I think that utilitarianism is relevant in the 21^st century because it is the only practical ethical system for governing large groups of people and it provides us with the most simple, yet powerful, ethical guideline which is to strive for happiness but only at the same time as minimising pain. 

H.D

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy comes from the Greek words ‘philos’, which means love, and ‘sophia’, meaning wisdom, therefore the word literally means ‘love of wisdom’, implying that through philosophy a person can acquire wisdom. As a matter of fact, commonly the general public believe philosophers, those who study philosophy, study fundamental problem such as existence of the universe and life, and moral values which is correct to a certain extent however philosophy itself does not contain information unlike science and various other studies, it is not a body of knowledge therefore by studying philosophy you are not inevitably entitled to knowledge. In fact it is often described as an activity where one asks philosophical questions such as ‘how was the world created?’ and ‘how ought we to live?’ and answers them by critically analysing previous conclusions made by others to these questions to determine an answer.

 

If we were to think philosophy as an activity, we could say that philosophy is a way of thinking to guide a person to think critically and open-mindedly so that they can answer philosophical questions well, and to think critically and open-mindedly means that a person must examine all evidence, including their own experiences, without being prejudiced or ignorant to other people’s conclusions to reach an unbiased and logical conclusion. Therefore through philosophy a person thinks independently and outside what they have been brought up to believe in, which means philosophy involves examining world-views, eliminating ignorance, deepening understanding and seeking reasoning to build convincing arguments where the truth is separated from the false which then allows a person to obtain wisdom. Philosophy also involves eliminating confusion, as those who study philosophy try to make sense through critical reflection so that they can develop clear definitions that is consistent and non-contradictory with reasons to justify their conclusion.

 

Philosophy can be separated into several subtopics: metaphysics which is the theory of reality, epistemology which is the theory of knowledge, ethics which is the theory of moral values, politics which is the theory of legal rights and government and aesthetics which is the theory of the nature of art therefore in each branch of philosophy different issues are addressed for example if one was to study metaphysics they would examine everything about reality. In philosophy, philosophers have different, contradicting views but the common aim is to gain the truth and unlike science where an scientific experiment can be carried out to determine the correct answer, in philosophy even the method for discovering the truth is an argument therefore philosophy is a study where one explores values, broadens experiences and learns to control their emotions and beliefs they have been taught to reach a conclusion as close as to the truth as possible.

 

In the past, questions that are raised by philosophy were answered by religion in reference to a higher authority (e.g. God). Philosophy of religion is concerned with questions regarding religion, which includes the nature and existence of God therefore philosophy of religion is very different from theology because theology automatically assumes that God exists. Philosophy of religion is mostly concerned with western ideas of God, therefore this includes the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Therefore issues raised concerning God in philosophy of religion refers to a being that is:   

• Masculine
• The only God (The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic)
• Immaterial therefore the being is made of spirit not matter 
• Omnipresent
• Omniscient
• Omnipotent
• Omnibenevolent
• Self-creating

A God that exhibits these characteristics is described the God of classical theism.

 

Philosophy of religion answers questions using valid, logical arguments and critically examining evidence therefore one could conclude that philosophy answers religious questions with the method of philosophy.

S.J.M.

Can punishment be justified?

After studying justice, law and punishment, I decided to research further into a controversial topic within the justice system; can punishment be justified? The imposing of penalties upon offenders who have broken society's laws seems intuitively justifiable, but the question I shall attempt to answer here is whether it is philosophically justifiable.

The basic moral question about punishment is an old age one: ‘What justifies the infliction of punishment on people?’ Punishing people certainly needs a justification, since it is almost always something which is harmful, painful or unpleasant for the recipient. When individuals steal, kidnap, or kill, we generally say this is wrong; but when a criminal is fined, imprisoned, or executed we deem it acceptable.  Though most people would endorse the punishment of criminals if asked, it is likely that they have not seriously considered the possibility that the amount of suffering inflicted counts so heavily against the practice that it is in fact wrong.

Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground.  D. D. Raphael, a British author, is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender.

To justify an act is to say that it is good or right. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.

Regarding the justification of punishment, philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A. Philosopher Kant agreed with this statement on the basis that a person cannot be treated merely as a means to some independent aim and must also be treated as an end unto himself. In other words, a person may not be treated merely as a tool or a chess-piece.

From researching this topic, I have come to the conclusion that to claim whether punishment is justifiable or not is dependent upon the nature of the act which the person has engaged in and the individual circumstances to why one has sinned against God and their neighbours.

By E.C :)

 

 

Solution for Social Evils

 

The observation of our today’s world enabled me to recognize that despite the growing prosperity of our economic and cultural progression, our international community is still unable to prevent and resolve many of the social evils that are still very much present in today’s society. The fact that our growing capability to embark upon these problems is becoming greater, yet we’re still unable to tackle them shows the inadequacy of the social as well as legal system. Such observation led me to believe that identification of the right tools to reconcile these problems is the key. Amongst some of the answers are ethical theories not only due to their ability to deal with a wider spectrum of problems on an international level but also due to their simplicity and basic ethical framework that they offer for both believers and non-believers.

An example of one would be Kant’s deontological theory. When looking at this particular theory we’re able to note that the theory is more concerned with actions rather than its results putting emphasis on one’s reasoning. His theory is structured based on two particular beliefs, one being that morality is rational and since rationality is universal, possessed by all human beings. Second one being that fulfilling one’s duty is the right thing to do in addition to the fact that we ought to do it. We’re able to see that ethical theories provide a moral agent with the structure needed for the making of moral decisions.

 When looking at Kant’s theory in particular we’re able to note that the emphasis on duty helps us to recognize the fact that as human beings our inner moral sense differs and is stronger or weaker towards meeting some obligations over others. Surely if we all acted out of duty and did what we meant to do more of evil would be prevailed? Whether out of duty or not if we all donated to charity surely the charity is more likely to help its cause. We’re able to see that the use of ethical theories such as Kant’s deontological theory could be seen as an answer to some of the social evils. However, some might say that it is important to note that although ethical theories provide us with the moral basis; it is the application of the theory that could potentially resolve them not the theory itself. The fact is that like most solutions this one too isn’t perfect, it is therefore up to us to ensure its success as the success of ethical theories depends on our own willingness to oblige them.

S.S

 

 

Are people born with an innate idea of God or is it a learnt concept?

Are people born with an innate idea of God or is it a learnt concept?

The debate whether children are born into the world with a predisposed knowledge of God, or whether as humans we are merely born with a sense of curiosity which we replace with the divine, continues to be a struggling argument for the existence of God. This poses the question: despite theological claims, do we have reason to believe that we are born believers in God?

On the surface I was curious to know what people’s immediate responses would be to such an in-depth question. Through researching on the internet and asking people I know personally, I was astonished to find out that most of the replies I received disagreed with the idea that we could be born with an innate idea of God. Many of the reactions I received held the view that the concept of God was, and still is, merely passed down from parents, relatives, friends and society through each generation. I also found responses which stated that the human mind is naturally geared to try and work things out. However, when it is a struggle for us to find a convincing answer a god is a good enough explanation to fulfil the gap in such situations. Others purported that the answer lies within the human imagination, for if everyone was without knowledge where has any concept arisen from? However, is religion not a far reaching concept for someone to imagine out of nowhere? Or can we use the analogy of language; that like religion we are born without knowledge and so have to be taught in order to know?

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose. He states that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. In one study conducted by Dr Barrett six and seven year olds were asked why the first bird existed, and replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice". Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap. Dr Barrett stated this as evidence that from an early age children understand the natural world is different from manmade objects. He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers, claiming that "Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

The findings of Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University, similarly suggests that supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful psychological force that already exists. His work, supported by other researchers, suggests that people are programmed to receive a feeling of spirituality. Professor Hood believes research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works.

These findings challenge atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who have long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood 'indoctrination'. However, supporters of the counter argument that everyone is born atheist and religion is learned, claim that we are born forgivably an ‘ignorant sort’ of which we couldn’t be anything more. Thus, the fact that we don’t visibly display knowledge of God isn’t, alone, very interesting since, when people call themselves atheists, they don’t usually mean to convey their ignorance. What is more interesting to talk about is the kind of beliefs that babies unaided by religion naturally form as their minds develop. Dr R. Elisabeth Cornwell, an evolutionary psychologist, who I came across while researching claims that we are born scientists. Dr Cornwall uses the example that when babies sit in their highchairs and throw stuff off they observe what their caregiver does. The caregiver will presumably pick the object up, which will delight the baby for they have received a response, so they will then drop the object again. However while doing this the baby’s observing that the object always falls, and so the baby is also testing gravity. Dr Cornwall states that babies start off with nothing, but then through our natural instincts start to test the world: ‘Then somehow adults send them off to school where we kill the little scientist within them.’ Dr Cornwall states that religion isn’t born within us; it is used as a way to close doors for young and curious minds to explore and to ask questions. This supports the view from the counter argument stance that, without submersion into religion as a child, we would most likely maintain the position of a person without knowledge of faith.   

As a whole there is no absolute answer, therefore making all claims merely speculations. It is up to us, as individuals, to decide subjectively what we believe. From researching and discussing such an in-depth topic myself, I have definitely opened my mind to new ideas, exploring the possibilities of other points of view.   

By D.J 

Does religion still have a place in society?

After studying various critiques of religious belief, I find myself questioning whether religion still has a place in our society.

Many people believe that in our modern scientific society religion is rendered redundant. With the theories of Evolution, Big Bang and so forth to explain our existence, religion no longer serves any purpose. Although the 2011 Census revealed that Christianity was the largest religious group in England and Wales, with 33.2m people, its size has decreased by 15% since 2001 and it has the oldest age profile of all the main religious groups. One in five Christians are now aged 65 or over. Furthermore, a quarter of the population in England and Wales do not now have a religion, with this figure increasing rapidly.
 
Richard Dawkins, a strong advocate of the atheist position, claims that religion is ‘an indulgence of irrationality that is nourishing extremism, division and terror’. For Dawkins, religion is completely unnecessary as it prohibits us from developing our knowledge and asking the essential questions for humanity to grow. He asserts that religion is the absolute root of all evil.

Many people believe that we do not need religion for life to have meaning. We can personally make the decision as to whether something has meaning by determining how much value it has to us as free thinking individuals. We do not need a god or any supreme being to guide us to value the love we share with our family and friends or life experiences, such as finding self-fulfilment or achieving our dreams. We alone have the responsibility to make the decision as to what has value and meaning; thus religion is completely pointless.

However, I believe that religion still plays a significant role in our society. Often it is the case that even firm atheists in times of hardship and in their deepest despair find themselves turning to God in an attempt to find hope and reassurance that all will be well. An interesting case is that of the prominent philosopher, Anthony Flew, who spent much of his career promoting atheism. But in 2004, at the age of 81, he asserted a belief in deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. Moreover, religion plays an essential part in the process of mourning. When people are overwhelmed with a sense of loss or extreme anguish they turn to an omnibenevolent God to find strength, love and comfort in an extremely difficult time in their lives.

Furthermore, our fundamental values are shaped by Christianity and therefore are integral to society even though we may not be aware of such profound influence. They aid us to develop a conscience and to know right from wrong. Gospel values, such as love, honesty and kindness, enable society to function smoothly and in harmony with those around us. It enables us to recognise our self-worth and we become the very best versions of ourselves. We are more likely to develop altruistic tendencies showing willingness to help others, and to derive happiness from spiritual rather than materialistic rewards.

Religion has been a constant feature in society, from ancient times to modern day, and its significance affects everyone to some degree – large or small. Even though we are a nation of scientific progress, religion and science can coexist.

 

By B.O'M